As distracted driving continues to assert itself as a factor in more and more traffic deaths, one safety issue with newer cars has the opposite effect and goes under the radar. Designers spend a lot of time getting the audio signals right for various driver assistance features and even speaker systems to reduce distracted driving, helping drivers in bigger vehicles talk to passengers in the back without turning around.

But while drivers may be protected, pedestrians may be increasingly vulnerable to accidents involving hybrid or electric cars that don’t make noise. At low speeds these vehicles are virtually inaudible.
The NHTSA has several times delayed putting a rule on pedestrian safety sounds into effect that could protect vulnerable pedestrians — despite being urged by the Department of Transportation.

Some cars, like the Nissan Leaf have systems like the Approaching Vehicle Sound for alerting pedestrians, but others, like the Tesla Model S, do not have them. As yet, there is no industry standard for electric vehicle warnings. Designers have encountered problems with designing sounds that not only alert pedestrians to the approach of a vehicle, but also from where it is approaching. Lower frequency sounds don’t do this as well. Higher frequency sounds do better but require more volume, which could cause distraction to a driver. Currently pedestrians may be at risk from electric cars that don’t have alert sounds, and as yet there are no rules to ensure these standards are in place.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a pedestrian accident involving an electric car, please contact the expert Boston Pedestrian Accident Lawyers at Parker | Scheer LLP today for a free, confidential consultation. (617) 886-0500

In recent years, there has been an increased focus on the risks of distracted driving, partially due to the added distraction of cell phones and texting. It has been the cause of many car accidents, as well as some in which buses and trains were involved. Because of this, there has been an increased focus on bus and train drivers, and transit agencies are working to increase passenger safety and reduce the risks associated with distracted driving.

There have been incidents involving distracted bus and train drivers around the world over the past few months. In one incident, a bus driver who was talking on a cell phone jumped a curb and knocked over a light post. The incident killed an eight-month-old baby and injured seven other people. A Spanish train also crashed while the driver was using a cell phone. That crash killed 69 people. In a third incident, a driver reaching down to get something hit an 86-year-old woman, breaking multiple bones as the vehicle dragged her for half of a block. These incidents represent a fraction of those caused each year by distracted drivers, and put increased pressure on those in power to take action.

Back in 2009, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) put standards in place for transit systems. According to these standards all drivers should have their cell phones off and out-of-reach while operating a vehicle. The Association also promotes the reduction of various other interruptions that can distract the driver, such as fare boxes and dispatchers. Although these standards are voluntary, they are nearly universally adopted within the industry.

On the other hand, federal regulations are not voluntary. The United States Department of Transportation put a ban on using handheld phone for truck drivers and interstate buses two years ago. States have started to continue this into their own laws by adding the federal rules to their regulations or going through an independent rule-making process. Trains are currently regulated on a federal level to an even greater extent than buses.

In order to decrease the problem, transit agencies must play their roll as well. For instance, many will test bus drivers on a regular basis to determine if they can perform key business tasks well.

This increased focus on all fronts of the risks that come with distracted driving should help to decrease the risk of accidents and keep passengers safe.

As discussed in a recent decision from the Massachusetts Appeals Court, to sustain a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed him a duty, that the defendant breached that duty, that the plaintiff was injured, and that the defendant’s breach was the cause of those injuries. Defendants often attack the elements of a plaintiff’s negligence claim by arguing that the plaintiff cannot prove “causation.” In other words, the defendant claims that even if there was a breach of duty, the plaintiff is unable to prove that the defendant’s negligence caused the injury.

It can be especially challenging to prove causation in car accident cases when only one vehicle is involved, and the passengers of that vehicle are injured. In Alford v. Department of Transportation, the plaintiffs were driving on Route 1A when they crashed into the roadside barrier on the ramp to the Massachusetts Turnpike. The plaintiffs were unable to remember the details of the accident, but the investigating police officer, who had spoken with a witness at the scene, was able to provide important information. The police officer testified at his deposition that the driver in the plaintiffs’ vehicle lost control of the vehicle after it contacted heavy snow left behind on the exit ramp. He testified that he observed a strip of snow roughly two feet wide and six to twelve inches deep on the ramp, which extended across two lanes to the roadside barrier. According to the supervisor of highways and tunnels, the road had just been plowed and salted. The officer stated that the snow path was consistent with a set of plows leaving snow behind.

A superior court judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiffs were unable to show that their injuries were more likely than not caused by the defendant’s negligence in failing to adequately plow the road, rather than some other source. The Appeals Court disagreed and reversed the ruling.

As the Appeals Court stated, to prove causation under Massachusetts law, “[t]he plaintiffs must show that there was greater likelihood or probability that the harm complained of was due to causes for which the defendant was responsible than from any other cause…. If on all the evidence, it is just as reasonable to suppose that the cause is one for which no liability would attach to the defendant as one for which the defendant is liable, then judgment must be entered for the defendant.”

In this case, the deposition testimony of the police officer provided evidence that there was snow left on the road after the defendant’s hired plow had plowed the area, and that when the plaintiffs’ vehicle came into contact with that snow, the driver lost control of the vehicle, resulting in the accident that caused the plaintiffs’ injuries. Had the driver been cited for a driving violation, that may have been evidence that the driver’s own actions were the cause of the accident. However, no citation was issued. Additionally, no other evidence in the record showed that anything other than the snow on the road contributed to the accident. Accordingly, the Appeals Court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently met their burden of showing causation to permit the case to proceed to trial.

This case illustrates the importance of obtaining statements from witnesses and of calling the police to the scene of an accident to investigate. Often, car crashes occur so quickly that the drivers may not know what happened. Here, because the officer observed the accident scene and spoke with witnesses, his police report and subsequent testimony was crucial to the viability of the plaintiffs’ negligence case.

A new study again confirms that cell phones are the most dangerous and distracting devices to use while driving. The study measured the effects of various distractions that commonly impact a driver’s ability to competently navigate roads. The study tested the most common distractions drivers typically face. The use of a cell phone during vehicle operation multiplied the risk of crashing more than any other distraction presented. While drivers commonly use their cell phones, the potential consequences remain catastrophic and deadly.

The study, published by the New England Journal of Medicine, highlights the danger of many common distractions drivers face. The orchestrators of the study installed various sensors and cameras in the cars of 209 study participants. Of those participants, 49 were new drivers between the ages of 16 and 17 years old, and 167 of the drivers were adults with a wide range of driving experience. The various devices revealed the most impairing distractions, ranking the distractions according to the multiple which they increased a driver’s likelihood of crashing.

The motivation behind conducting this study is rooted in statistics. While only 6.4% of the driving population is between the ages of 15 and 20 years old, that age group accounts for 10% of all motor vehicle traffic deaths, and 14% of all car accidents resulting in injuries. These percentages are generally attributed to the fact that inexperienced and younger drivers are more prone to distraction. This study tends to confirm that theory.

Experienced drivers were only significantly distracted while attempting to dial a phone number. Many distractions significantly multiplied the risk of crashing amongst the novice drivers. The teenage drivers eating while driving were three times as likely to cause an accident. The young drivers were four times more likely to crash while texting, and were eight times more likely to crash while dialing a phone number.

Amongst all drivers, and especially amongst teenagers, using a cell phone substantially affects driving ability. Using a cell phone was shown to seriously delay reaction time to avoid hazards, increased following distances and the frequency of inadvertently crossing lanes, and substantially decreased drivers’ ability to react to and analyze their environment.

The consequences of using a cell phone while driving can be alarming, especially in light of the fact that cell phone-related distractions are entirely avoidable. Even so, many drivers subject themselves to these impairing distractions daily. Recently, a New Jersey court recognized the dangers of drivers’ cell phone use in a case where a person texted a driver and, while attempting to respond, the driver crashed his car and injured the plaintiff. The court held that not only could the driver be liable for negligently injuring the plaintiff, but so could the person who sent the text to the driver. The New Jersey decision gives rise to the possibility that the Massachusetts courts could impute similar liability to those who contribute to a driver’s distractions while operating a vehicle.

The car event data recorder installed under most vehicles’ hoods is becoming increasingly important in civil and criminal lawsuits. The device, colloquially known as the “black box,” stores data regarding a driver’s habits, and it is capable of detailing the events that take place during each trip in the car. As the boxes were long used by car manufacturers to record performance data, the new trend is to use the information stored as evidence from automobile accidents.

Roughly 96% of all new vehicles sold in the United States have a black box installed. National lobbies from car insurance companies, law enforcement, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hope that 100% of cars will have the black box installed by 2014.

Recently, the high-profile events in Massachusetts involving Lt. Governor Tim Murray increased awareness of the issues and exemplified how the black box data may be used by law enforcement or a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit. According to reports, the Lt. Governor was involved in a car accident and was interviewed by state police at the scene. Lt. Governor Murray stated that he was not speeding and that he was wearing his seatbelt, but the black box in his car offered a different story. The black box installed in his vehicle recorded that the public official was driving over 100 mph. No one was injured in the accident, but the facts illustrate the potential evidentiary value of the data stored on a driver’s black box.

The national discourse is focused on articulating clear standards for when it is acceptable for law enforcement or parties in litigation to use this data. Currently, there is no such direction. On one hand, the information stored is essential to discovering the truth behind a car accident, but on the other hand, the availability of the data could raise concerns about a driver’s privacy rights.

Currently, 14 states have legislated regarding the use of black box data as evidence. In general, the uniform message of those laws is that the data belongs to the vehicle’s operator, but the information may be accessible via court order. The legislation has prompted attorneys to subpoena the information stored on vehicle’s black box in an attempt to prove (or disprove) liability in an automobile accident. The release of the information has resulted in some drivers losing coverage from their insurance companies, but has also been telling of the facts behind many motor vehicle accidents that have caused personal injury.

In other scenarios, the vehicle information stored in the black box has been used as evidence in products liability suits. A driver in Nevada was recently involved in a fatal car accident when his air bag failed to deploy. The information stored on the vehicle’s black box clearly showed that the vehicle was driving fast enough that the airbag should have deployed. This evidence was critical to proving that the airbag’s failure to deploy was a result of a defective device.

Obtaining black box information in the investigation of car accidents for use in personal injury or products liability cases can clearly be very valuable. “For most of the 100-year history of the car, it used to be ‘he said, she said,'” said Thomas Kowalick, an expert in event data recorders and a former co-chairman of the federal committee that set the standard for black boxes. The data collected by the vehicle’s black box and presented through expert testimony at trial would help a jury in assessing the credibility of what “he” said versus what “she” said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Highway Traffic Safety Association recently issued new guidelines regarding child seats in cars. Although the two organizations issued the guidelines separately, both have concluded that a child should ride in a rear-facing child seat until the child reaches two years of age. Studies used to formulate the guidelines showed that a one-year-old child was five times more likely to be injured in a crash in a front facing seat than in a rear-facing seat. The front facing seat enables the child’s head to snap forward at impact during a motor vehicle accident, potentially causing serious spinal injury. Young children are more susceptible to this type of injury due to their generally larger head-to-neck size ratio.

The new guidelines also address car seat safety for older children. One such recommendation is that children under the age of thirteen ride only in the back seat. The real trouble, however, could come when parents try to convince their children-even those over the age of twelve, possibly-that they too will be required to ride in a car booster seat. This guideline states that children under the height of 4’9″ should ride in a booster seat when using a lap-to-shoulder seatbelt. The underlying rationale is that children at and under that height do not properly fit in lap-to-shoulder belts, often resulting in abdominal and spinal injuries during car accidents. While these remain only guidelines, a battle of resistance between pre-pubescent children and their parents over the use of a booster seat is sure to result.

The guidelines may be found at the National Highway Traffic Safety Association website by clicking here, or the American Academy of Pediatrics website here.

If you or your child has been injured in a motor vehicle accident, contact a member of theComplex Personal Injury team toll free at 866-414-0400 to discuss your rights.

A young woman suffered fatal injuries after she was hit by a bus early this morning around 8:49 AM in the Longwood Medical Area.

According to Boston police, who are investigating the accident, the woman was about 30 years old, was crossing Ruggles Street and Huntington Avenue, not far from Wentworth Institute of Technology and Longwood Medical Area. The woman was taken immediately to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where she died.

Police also reported that she had been trapped under the bus after she was hit. Police blocked the bus accident scene and are currently investigating the accident. The bus that hit the woman was a shuttle bus that was provided for the Longwood Medical Area.

According the Boston Globe, The operator, Paul Revere Transportation, released a statement saying it “is deeply saddened by the terrible tragedy that took place this morning. Our heartfelt prayers and sympathies go out to the family of the victim. Paul Revere is cooperating fully with the accident investigation. The driver involved in the accident has been removed from service and taken to Beth Israel Hospital.”

If a family member died as the result of a motor vehicle accident, please contact a Personal Injury Lawyer at Parker|Scheer, LLP, toll free, at 866-414-0400 to discuss your rights. There is never a charge to discuss your potential case and all information is maintained in strict confidence.

This past Friday, December 3rd, a bus full of University of Massachusetts Amherst students careened off the highway in Putney, Vermont. In a group of three buses, one rolled over and landed into a side embankment. The buses were heading to a ski resort in Quebec, Canada. According to reports, the driver lost consciousness behind the wheel, and the bus then rolled over along the highway. Local paper reports stated that the bus “veered over the median and is now facing north, but in the southbound embankment.” There were at least two dozen vehicles on the scene. The 49-year-old driver was air-lifted from the accident scene to the hospital. The bus driver was released from the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Hospital in Lebanon, New Hampshire on Saturday afternoon.

The accident left 17 students injured. Some students were injured from flying glass as the bus rolled over. The UMass website reported that the students were released on Saturday from hospitals in Brattleboro and Springfield Vermont. Initial police reports stated that 30 people were injured, three of them critically. There were actually 28 other students on the bus who were not injured, and in fact some passengers were not students. The discrepancies in reports were due to the chaotic accident scene.

The Boston Globe reported that the bus driver had been with the company for six or seven years, and has had no known health issues. He also passed a physical six months ago. The bus company owner, Joe Schoppy, told the paper that the bus driver was one of their best, and the accident was his first. He stated that the driver may have suffered a heart attack or anxiety attack immediately before the crash. An investigation into the cause of the accident is underway.

If you or a family member has suffered as the result of a motor vehicle accident, please contact our Complex Personal Injury Group at Parker|Scheer LLP, toll free, at 866-414-0400 to discuss your rights. There is never a charge to discuss your potential case and all information is maintained in strict confidence.

A driver who fails through action or inaction to operate his vehicle with reasonable care is said to be negligent and can be held liable for all related injuries stemming from that negligence. At least, that is what the law in Massachusetts says; but the fact of the matter is the people involved in Massachusetts car accidents and the events leading up to them can play a significant role in the actual outcome of the case.

This scenario plays out most commonly in accidents where the defendant’s responsibility is certain. In such car accident cases the defense attorney will shift the attention from the facts of the accident which clearly do not help the defendant, to the character of the defendant hoping to minimize the verdict against his client. In doing this, the hope is that if a jury likes the defendant as a person and thinks this was just an “accident” then it will not award the plaintiff what the law states it should. This is of course assuming that jurors believe that the manner in which the accident occurred was something that the jurors collectively could see themselves doing at one time or another.

In contrast, however, if the actions of the defendant leading up to the accident are so reckless that the jurors cannot relate, then the exact opposite will occur. Juries in these instances may be more likely to award more than it should in an attempt to punish defendant. Massachusetts does not allow for punitive (“punishing”) damages in motor vehicle negligence cases which do not result in death. Despite this fact however, it is likely that a plaintiff will see a much larger verdict when the defendant is for example driving at an excessive speed or operating under the influence of alcohol, than in cases in which the defendant took his eye off the road for a second.

If you have been involved in a motor vehicle that caused an injury, contact the attorneys Parker Scheer LLP for a free confidential case review at 866-414-0400.

If you or someone you know has been injured in a motor vehicle accident, contact a member of the Parker|Scheer Complex Personal Injury Group toll free at 866-414-0400 to discuss your rights.

According to a Boston Globe The Boston Globe: One dead in I-495 crash“>article, John H. Kempster Jr., a 62-year-old man from Taunton was killed when his 2004 Honda SUV flipped over on I-495 in Mansfield. Kempster was ejected from the vehicle after it rolled over a number of times. Police arrived at 10 p.m., and Kempster was transported to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. The car accident is still being investigated.

It is not uncommon for SUV rollovers to occur as a result of some defect in design or manufacture. When that is the case, the manufacturer or another person could be liable for your injuries. Approximately 37 percent of fatal SUV accidents involve rollovers. SUVs are four times more likely to roll over than passenger cars, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

If you suspect that you have been injured because of a defective SUV, call the experienced personal injury lawyers of Parker|Scheer LLP 24 hours a day, toll free at 866-414-0400. Your case review will be free and confidential.